One Question About Marketing Largesse
What in the world did the Olympic Committee get for $800,000 that it could not have received for $800?
I don't care if it was objectively the best logo in the history of mankind, it's not the logo that makes the brand, and thus it's not going to be worth $800k. How many world-class Olympic athletes could have been trained for $799,200? It seems that would have gone further to advance the brand than a logo -- bad or good.
- Cam Beck
P.S. As an aside, does anyone not know where the 2012 Olympics will be held? I'm not one to advocate being intentionally bad for the sake of getting noticed and to get the message out, but does anyone think that might be an issue at play here?
Update: Valeria has picked up on this last theme and ran with it. In her mind, the conversation generated by this logo was worth the expense.
As I said on Mack's blog, I don't think the logo will hurt the brand of the Olympics, since brands aren't built on logos, and as I said here, it's of some note that THERE IS NO QUESTION where the 2012 Olympics will be held -- so I think it's clear that London is getting some great mileage from this "controversy." However, my original question, "What in the world did the Olympic Committee get for $800,000 that it could not have received for $800?"... still stands. :)